通过软骨周围入路的改良胸腹神经阻滞：系统回顾与元分析》。

IF 1.6 4区医学 Q2 NURSING

Journal of Perianesthesia Nursing Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jopan.2024.03.014

Insun Park MD, PhD , Jae Hyon Park MD, PhD , Chang-Hoon Koo MD, PhD , Jin-Hee Kim MD, PhD , Bon-Wook Koo MD, PhD , Jung-Hee Ryu MD, PhD , Ah-Young Oh MD, PhD

{"title":"通过软骨周围入路的改良胸腹神经阻滞：系统回顾与元分析》。","authors":"Insun Park MD, PhD , Jae Hyon Park MD, PhD , Chang-Hoon Koo MD, PhD , Jin-Hee Kim MD, PhD , Bon-Wook Koo MD, PhD , Jung-Hee Ryu MD, PhD , Ah-Young Oh MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.jopan.2024.03.014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the postoperative analgesic efficacy and safety of the modified thoracoabdominal nerve block through the perichondral approach (M-TAPA) in abdominal surgeries.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Systematic review and meta-analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We searched electronic databases to identify relevant studies comparing M-TAPA with conventional analgesic techniques. The primary outcome was the requirement for rescue analgesia at 12 and 24 hours postsurgery. Secondary outcomes included the 11-point numerical rating scale pain scores at 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 24 hours following surgery, global quality of recovery scores, and postoperative adverse events.</div></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><div>Five randomized controlled trials involving 308 patients were analyzed. M-TAPA showed no significant difference in the requirement for rescue analgesia at 12 hours (relative risk [RR]: 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62, 1.22; <em>P</em> = .424; <em>I</em><sup>2</sup> = 40.7%; <em>P</em><sub>h</sub> = .185) and 24 hours (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.22, 1.99; <em>P</em> = .252; <em>I</em><sup>2</sup> = 90.3%; <em>P</em><sub>h</sub> < .001) postsurgery compared to non-M-TAPA. No significant differences in numerical rating scale pain scores or global quality of recovery scores were found between the two groups (all <em>P</em> < .05). However, M-TAPA was associated with a lower occurrence of nausea (RR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.22, 0.68; <em>P</em> < .001; <em>I</em><sup>2</sup> = 0%; <em>P</em><sub>h</sub> = .834), vomiting (RR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.17, 0.62; <em>P</em> < .001; <em>I</em><sup>2</sup> = 0%; <em>P</em><sub>h</sub> = .884), and itching (RR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.21, 0.70; <em>P</em> = .002; <em>I</em><sup>2</sup> = 0%; <em>P</em><sub>h</sub> = .826).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>There was no significant difference in analgesic efficacy and safety between M-TAPA and non-M-TAPA techniques.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49028,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Perianesthesia Nursing","volume":"40 1","pages":"Pages 205-212"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Modified Thoracoabdominal Nerves Block Through Perichondral Approach: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Insun Park MD, PhD , Jae Hyon Park MD, PhD , Chang-Hoon Koo MD, PhD , Jin-Hee Kim MD, PhD , Bon-Wook Koo MD, PhD , Jung-Hee Ryu MD, PhD , Ah-Young Oh MD, PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jopan.2024.03.014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the postoperative analgesic efficacy and safety of the modified thoracoabdominal nerve block through the perichondral approach (M-TAPA) in abdominal surgeries.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Systematic review and meta-analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We searched electronic databases to identify relevant studies comparing M-TAPA with conventional analgesic techniques. The primary outcome was the requirement for rescue analgesia at 12 and 24 hours postsurgery. Secondary outcomes included the 11-point numerical rating scale pain scores at 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 24 hours following surgery, global quality of recovery scores, and postoperative adverse events.</div></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><div>Five randomized controlled trials involving 308 patients were analyzed. M-TAPA showed no significant difference in the requirement for rescue analgesia at 12 hours (relative risk [RR]: 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62, 1.22; <em>P</em> = .424; <em>I</em><sup>2</sup> = 40.7%; <em>P</em><sub>h</sub> = .185) and 24 hours (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.22, 1.99; <em>P</em> = .252; <em>I</em><sup>2</sup> = 90.3%; <em>P</em><sub>h</sub> < .001) postsurgery compared to non-M-TAPA. No significant differences in numerical rating scale pain scores or global quality of recovery scores were found between the two groups (all <em>P</em> < .05). However, M-TAPA was associated with a lower occurrence of nausea (RR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.22, 0.68; <em>P</em> < .001; <em>I</em><sup>2</sup> = 0%; <em>P</em><sub>h</sub> = .834), vomiting (RR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.17, 0.62; <em>P</em> < .001; <em>I</em><sup>2</sup> = 0%; <em>P</em><sub>h</sub> = .884), and itching (RR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.21, 0.70; <em>P</em> = .002; <em>I</em><sup>2</sup> = 0%; <em>P</em><sub>h</sub> = .826).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>There was no significant difference in analgesic efficacy and safety between M-TAPA and non-M-TAPA techniques.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49028,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Perianesthesia Nursing\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"Pages 205-212\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Perianesthesia Nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1089947224001102\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Perianesthesia Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1089947224001102","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

目的：本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在研究腹部手术中经软骨周围入路的改良胸腹神经阻滞术（M-TAPA）的术后镇痛效果和安全性：设计：系统回顾和荟萃分析：我们检索了电子数据库，以确定将 M-TAPA 与传统镇痛技术进行比较的相关研究。主要结果是术后 12 小时和 24 小时的抢救性镇痛需求。次要结果包括术后0、1、2、4、6、8、12和24小时的11点数字评分表疼痛评分、总体恢复质量评分和术后不良事件：对涉及 308 名患者的五项随机对照试验进行了分析。M-TAPA显示，在12小时内对抢救性镇痛的需求无明显差异（相对风险[RR]：0.87；95%置信区间[RR]：0.87）：0.87；95% 置信区间 [CI]：0.62，1.22；P = .424；I2 = 40.7%；Ph = .185）和 24 小时（RR：0.67；95% CI：0.22，1.99；P = .252；I2 = 90.3%；Ph 2 = 0%；Ph = .834），呕吐（RR：0.32；95% CI：0.17，0.62；P 2 = 0%；Ph = .884）、瘙痒（RR：0.38；95% CI：0.21，0.70；P = .002；I2 = 0%；Ph = .826）.结论：结论：M-TAPA 和非 M-TAPA 技术在镇痛效果和安全性方面没有明显差异。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Modified Thoracoabdominal Nerves Block Through Perichondral Approach: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Purpose

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the postoperative analgesic efficacy and safety of the modified thoracoabdominal nerve block through the perichondral approach (M-TAPA) in abdominal surgeries.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

We searched electronic databases to identify relevant studies comparing M-TAPA with conventional analgesic techniques. The primary outcome was the requirement for rescue analgesia at 12 and 24 hours postsurgery. Secondary outcomes included the 11-point numerical rating scale pain scores at 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 24 hours following surgery, global quality of recovery scores, and postoperative adverse events.

Findings

Five randomized controlled trials involving 308 patients were analyzed. M-TAPA showed no significant difference in the requirement for rescue analgesia at 12 hours (relative risk [RR]: 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62, 1.22; P = .424; I² = 40.7%; P_h = .185) and 24 hours (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.22, 1.99; P = .252; I² = 90.3%; P_h < .001) postsurgery compared to non-M-TAPA. No significant differences in numerical rating scale pain scores or global quality of recovery scores were found between the two groups (all P < .05). However, M-TAPA was associated with a lower occurrence of nausea (RR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.22, 0.68; P < .001; I² = 0%; P_h = .834), vomiting (RR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.17, 0.62; P < .001; I² = 0%; P_h = .884), and itching (RR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.21, 0.70; P = .002; I² = 0%; P_h = .826).

Conclusions

There was no significant difference in analgesic efficacy and safety between M-TAPA and non-M-TAPA techniques.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Journal of Perianesthesia Nursing NURSING-

CiteScore

2.20

自引率

17.60%

发文量

279

审稿时长

90 days

期刊介绍： The Journal of PeriAnesthesia Nursing provides original, peer-reviewed research for a primary audience that includes nurses in perianesthesia settings, including ambulatory surgery, preadmission testing, postanesthesia care (Phases I and II), extended observation, and pain management. The Journal provides a forum for sharing professional knowledge and experience relating to management, ethics, legislation, research, and other aspects of perianesthesia nursing.